Decision Support Tools for Water Resource Management: A Case Study of Bung
Boraphet Wetland, Thailand
Nutchanart Sriwongsitanon *1 , Kritsanat Surakit,1 Peter R Hawkins2 and Nimal Cha ndrasena 2
1

Department of Water Resources Engineering, Kasetsart University, Thailand

2

Ecosystem Restoration, Australia* Corresponding Author: Tel:+66 2 5791567 fax:+66 2 5791567

Email: fengnns@ku.ac.th

Abstract
Water and other natural resources of Bung Boraphet Wetland in Thailand have been underincreasing pressure from over-exploitation. Sustainable management and ‘wise-use’ of the
Wetland’s resources require achieving a balance between economic exploitation andconservation. Scientifically based decision support tools are vital to gain better insights into
the complex interactions between the large wetland system, its contributing catchment andfloodplain, and then pave the way for planning effective long-term management. This paper
presents a summary of several decision support tools that we developed for Bung Boraphet.
The tools are: (a) Water budget predictive model, (b) Land-use analysis using satellite
imagery, and (c) Database linked Geographic Information System.
From a review of literature and field studies, we identified the factors, which are having themost serious impacts on long-term sustainability of Bung Boraphet. We also conducted fieldstudies to collect primary data on hydrological parameters on the lake between December
2002 and May 2006. These, and available secondary data, were then used to develop a modelfor the daily water budget of the Wetland. Model calculations and observed water levels arehighly correlated for this period, proving the veracity of the model. Evaporation loss of water
is a critical factor during the dry seasons (~ 41% loss), as is extraction for irrigated rice grownin encroached areas around the lake (~55% loss). The modeling tool allows the analysis ofdifferent water use scenarios. For instance, the model forecasts that even if the weir height israised by 0.5 m to the level of +24.5 m (MSL), as has been suggested by some stakeholders,
irrigation water abstraction has to be reduced by 35 % of the current consumption, to maintainthe recommended minimum water level (+23 m, MSL) for sustainable fishery.
Insights into land use change in the surrounding catchment and lake were gained by a seriesof Landsat 5 satellite imagery. A comparison of imagery shows that between 1993 and 2003,
the irrigated area surrounding the lake doubled. At the same time, the submerged andemergent vegetation in the lake declined by 50%. The database linked GIS, which wasdeveloped, includes meteorological data and primary and/or secondary data on hydrology,
water quality, and biodiversity of the lake and its catchments, and covers the main rivers andtheir tributaries. Information from applying the decision support tools has stimulated
discussions with key stakeholders, identifying the ‘wetland values’, which need protection,and the economic, environmental, and social goals that need to be met by a future Plan ofManagement. As discussed in this paper, we have made a significant difference to the natureof the discourse in progress regarding managing Bung Boraphet by demonstrating the valueof basing wetland management decisions on scientific grounds. The POM, which is being
developed, is expected to receive multiple stakeholder support, so that Bung Boraphet’s
resources can be sustained for the use by present and future generations.
Keywords
Wetland, Bung Boraphet, Decision Support Tools, Water Budget, Satellite imagery
Introduction
Bung Boraphet, the largest freshwater wetland system in Thailand, is located in Nakhon
Sawan Province (Figure 1). The catchment area of the lake is approximately 4,288 Km2 andcovers areas of Muang district, Chumsang district and Tatako district. Klong Tatako andKlong Bon are the two main tributaries of the lake, and these have catchment areas of 3,141
and 1,124 Km2 , respectively. Bung Boraphet was originally a natural wetland. In the 1970’s,

a weir was constructed to store water, which permanently flooded some of the wetland. In
1993, the height of the weir was raised to +24 metres (MSL), storing 177 million m3 at Full
Supply Level (FSL) and flooding 148 Km2 .
The wetland-lake system and its resources are an invaluable part of the provincial economy,
and they are also a highly significant national and international biodiversity resource. Bung
Boraphet is known to be habitat for 54 fish species (Thai Fisheries Department, 2005); 252
bird species and other rare and unusual flora and fauna (DNP, 2005).
Bung Boraphet and its catchment have been managed by multiple agencies using a regulatory
approach. Increasing evidence of ecosystem deterioration, such as reduced biodiversity of fish
and birds, diminished fishery yield, and poor water quality (RID, 2004), suggests thesemanagement methods are not working. For example, the declaration of a 212 Km2Conservation Zone around Bung Boraphet in 1980s has failed to prevent humanencroachment within this zone for intensive rice farming. Currently, 30,000 people occup ynearly 70 % of the Conservation Zone (Rural Development Information Center, 2005).
The Thai Fisheries Department manages Bung Boraphet to sustain an economically importantfishery. Although the Fishery Department recommend a minimum level of +23 m (MSL), tosustain the Wetland’s fauna and flora, the lake level has fallen below this minimum for long
periods every year since 2001.
Since 1993, approximately 1 million m3 of sediment is dredged from Bung Boraphet eachyear, to maintain the water depth. This is a management response to prevent shallowing of thelake, due to sediment exported from the catchment (Thai Fisheries Department, 2005).
One response to the need to reexamine the management of Bung Boraphet was a recent reportby the RID, which provided numerous management recommendations including a
recommendation to increase the storage volume by 38% (Table 1) to provide more water forirrigation and to prevent further illegal settlement by increasing the permanently flooded areaof the wetland (RID, 2004).
In this paper, we present some ‘Decision Support Tools’, which are specifically designed toanalyze the complex water management issues of Bung Boraphet. We also demonstrate thevalue of the tools in developing a Plan of Management (POM) for the Wetland, following
principles of 'wise-use' and ‘best practice’ international guidelines (Ramsar 2004).
Water Abstraction Issues
In recent years, abstraction of water from the lake for irrigation in the dry season has drawn
the lake down below the recommended +23m minimum level. Historical level records in
Figure 2 show that between 1993 and 2001 the average annual low water level was below+23m during 14% of the year (range of 0-33%). Since 2001, the irrigation demand has
caused the dry season drawdown to increase markedly so that in those years the lake level was
below +23m for 40% of the time (range for 2002-2005 was 29%-56%) and the annual averageminimum stored volume was 14% of full supply.
The recommended minimum water level of +23 m (MSL) to sustain the wetland’s fauna andflora is not supported by any scientific arguments, but it does seem reasonable, as this level
represents less than 20% of the inundated area and less tha n 15% of the volume of the fulllake.
Figure 2 here
Decision Support Tools for Water Resource Management
We have developed a set of Decision Support Tools specifically for application in the
management of Bung Boraphet. These are: a Water Budget model; a Land Use patternanalysis, based on remote sensing; a Geographic Information System (GIS) and a database.

Water Budget Concept and Methodology
Central Thailand has a monsoonal climate with a cyclic pattern of wet and dry seasons which
are reflected in the water levels of Bung Boraphet (see Figure 2). In the dry season, between
December and June, the water level of Bung Boraphet is drawn down by extraction fromtributaries and canals upstream of the lake for rice irrigation. There are minor diversions ofwater for domestic users in Tatako District and for aquaculture. The inflows and outflows to
the lake are illustrated in a conceptual model (Figure 3). In the wet season, between July andNovember, the lake level rises due to inflows from the catchment and from direct rainfall on
the lake surface. There is potential for interbasin transfer from the Nan River, but this was nota significant water source during this study.
Figure 3 here
A daily water budget for Bung Boraphet was developed using the relationship between water
quantity parameters and the lake volume described in the following equation:∆S∆t= ∑ I (t ) − ∑ O (t ) + ( I r − ET − SL ) As

where, ∆S is the difference in the lake volume for any time period ( ∆t ); ∑ I (t ) is the total net
daily inflow; ∑ O(t ) is the total net daily outflow; Ir is the daily increase in lake level due torainfall; ET is daily fall in lake level due to evaporation from the surface; SL is the daily
variation of the level due to seepage, and AS is the lake surface area at a specific water level.
The Bung Boraphet water budget schematized in Figure 4 illustrates the data inputs and therelationship between the budget components. The lake has a large catchment area so the full
supply level (+24m) is exceeded most years and the flood level exceeded +27 metres MSL in
two of the past 12 years. At these times the lake inundates the flood plain and discharges to
the Nan River (via the Regulator) and to the Chao Phraya River over the weir.
Figure 4 here

Water Budget Model Calibration
This budget model was calibrated using daily data collected between 11 December 2002 andMay 2006. The lake level was reset to the observed value at each transition from inflow to
outflow (points 1-7 in Figure 5) and when irrigation abstractions ceased at the end of the crop
cycle (points 8-10). The observed and calculated lake water level were closely correlated (for
Inflow periods r =0.96; RMSE =2.4 MCM and EI =91%; whilst for Outflows r=0.99; RMSE
=6.4 MCM and EI=98%).
Water Budget Model terms and Scenario Analysis
Rainfall on the lake water surface represented 28% of the total inflow on average. The runoff
from the runoff from the catchment was principally from the two main gauged catchment
streams (Klong Tatako and Klong Bon). These delivered 51% and 20% of the average annual
inflow respectively. Although lake levels were consistently low and irrigation water was inhigh demand during the study period, the Nan River was only a minor source, representing
less than 2% of the inflows (Table 2).
Evaporation in the catchment area was seasonally adjusted using a pan-coefficient of 0.8-0.9(Chow, 1964). Stream flows were estimated daily from staff gauges in the main inflows,
calibrated for flow. Evaporation and abstraction for irrigation were the two largest water loss
terms, representing 52% and 44% of the average annual loss from the storage (Table 2).
Seepage estimated by the closed tube method (AIT, 1983) represented less than 1% of thetotal discharge, whilst the discharges downstream through the weir and regulator were also
minor terms during these low flood years (2002 -2005). The difference in the inflow and loss
parameters between wet and dry season are also described in Table 2. The irrigation term
underestimates the total consumption as we measured nett inflow to the lake in the wet season,
so abstractions during that period are undetected.

To demonstrate the value of the Water Budget Model, we used it to predict the lake waterlevel for the past 4 years, with five different combinations of weir height and abstraction
volumes (Scenario Analysis). These scenario results are compared with the current situation(Case 0; weir crest +24 m (MSL); daily abstraction set as 100%) in (Figure 6).
In Cases 1-3, the weir crest was raised by 0.5 m. In Cases 0, 4 and 5, the weir level isunchanged but the abstraction rate was varied as a fixed percentage of the daily abstraction
volume.
If the weir crest had been 0.5m higher between 2002-2006, and the abstraction rate was 65%
of current (Case 2), the lake would have been above the recommended level throughout.
Abstraction at the current rate (Case 1), would have drawn the lake below the recommended
level in 2 of the 4 years. A 20% increase in abstraction (Case 3) was similarly to Case 1 but
the drawdown in 2005 and 6 was more extreme, matching the current situation (Case 0).
When the weir height was no t changed (i.e. +24m), an abstraction volume of only 38% of thecurrent amount was needed to keep the lake above the recommended minimum level eachyear (Case 5). The worst case (Case 4) shows the impact of a 20% increase in abstraction withno increase in weir height. This produced a drawdown pattern similar to Case 0 in 3 of the 4
years, but in 2004 the drawdown was significantly lower and longer than Case 0.
Modeling is a powerful tool for analysing different water use scenarios objectively and with
scientific rigour.
Management attention should focus on the farming practices of irrigators using water in thedry season, when the lake level is affected by abstraction. The costs and benefits of proposals
to raise the weir height or divert water from the Nan River could also be rigorously evaluatedusing this type of modeling tool.

Remote sensing to monitor changes in land use and wetland habitat
Land use changes can cause significant impacts on tropical wetland environment s. Farming
on sloping lands in Thailand has resulted in severe soil erosion and an exponential increase in
sediment transport to drainage channels and reservoirs (ICEM, 2003).
We conducted a temporal and spatial analysis of land use change in the lake and surrounding
areas, using Landsat 5 images collected between 1993 and 2003. The images were allcollected when the lake level was +23 m (MSL), so they are directly comparable. We used
PCI Geomatica ™ V.9.1 software to analyze the different vegetation types and water clarity
characteristics of the Bung Boraphet catchment in the Landsat 5 images, with band R:G:B =4:5:3 for the landuse classification. The enhanced images (Figure 7A) were analysed tomeasure the extent of submerged and emergent wetland plant cover. This has declined by
50% between 1993 and 2003. At the same time, continuous dredging operations haveproduced a pool of turbid water, centered on the location of the dredge, which has expandedfrom an insignificant area in 1993 to cover a third of the lake in 2003. The images were also
analysed to determine the extent of the irrigated area around the lake in the dry season(Figures 7B and 8B). This doubled between 1993 and 2003.
The remote sens ing images are a powerful demonstration of the extent of the spatial andtemporal changes that have occurred in the Wetland- lake complex and the surrounding
catchment landscape in the past 15 years. The evidence of landscape change from remotesensing is supported by measurements of low water clarity in a broad area around the dredge(data not presented), and by the trend of increasing water extraction for irrigation.
Database and Geographic Information System
We developed a database to easily store, modify and extract natural resource information on
the Bung Boraphet region, to support planning for future lake management. There is anextensive primary data set collected between 2002 and 2006, which consists of daily rainfall

data at four locations, daily water levels and rating curves at four inflow points and outflow
points, and lake water quality data at more than 20 locations for more than 10 events. The
secondary data set, of meteorology, hydrology, water quality, and biodiversity of the Wetland
and its catchments, has been assembled from a number of official sources.
A Geographic Information System for Bung Boraphet has also been developed for creating,storing, analyzing, and managing spatial data and associated attributes. The GIS encompasses
areas within the boundary of the Wetland’s large catchment and its sub-catchments, and also
administrative boundaries, rainfall and runoff stations within and in surrounding catchments,
main roads, irrigation canals, as well as rivers and their tributaries. The database and the GIS
are both accessible at: http://maxlearn.eng.ku.ac.th/bb/login/ilogins.php
Plan of Management
We provided the land- use change information, fieldwork data and the outcomes of themodeled scenarios to stakeholders, to stimulate discussion on the likely impacts ofmanipulating the Wetland’s water levels. There is general agreement amongst stakeholders
that the Bung Boraphet ecosystem is becoming degraded and that the ‘stressors’ summarizedin Table 3 are causing these environmental changes. The stakeholders also agreed on
Economic, Environmental, and Social ‘Wetland Values’, which need to be protected (Table 3).
Our view is that the Decision Support Tools we have developed can provide a factual basis
for discussion of management issues such as; the benefit and cost of sediment dredging; theneed to modify water extraction practices; or the extent and the impact of land encroachment.
The scientific information we have gathered has been used to prepare a ‘draft’ Plan ofManagement for Bung Boraphet. This Plan sets goals that attempt to balance the economic,
social and environmental needs identified by the stakeholders (Table 3). The POM also
addresses key management issues, including the interaction between multiple user groups andstakeholders, and inter-agency cooperation. We see the draft POM as a mechanism togenerate further discussion on a ‘best management practice’ framework for the Wetland.
Discussion
There is much evidence of deterioration in the Bung Boraphet wetland ecosystem from theincreasing human exploitation of this water resource. The loss of plant cover shown insatellite images is one indicator of ecosystem degradation, which can be linked to a number ofhuman activities like abstraction of water in the dry season causing prolonged drawdown thatkills submerged plants; sediment dredging that muddies the water and deprives submergedplants of the light they need to grow; and possibly increased harvesting of plant material for
new commercial markets.
A key feature of productive wetland ecosystems is the hydraulic connectivity between thepermanent water (river and lake) and the surrounding floodplain, which allows transfer ofenergy from the terrestrial systems into the aquatic system in floods, especially by passage offish (Junk and Wantzen 2003). Hydraulic connectivity is reduced by human constructions ofweirs and dykes so maintenance and restoration of connectivity must be a primaryconsideration in any future management plans for Bung Boraphet.
The water usage scenario analyses illustrate the usefulness of the water budget model for
predicting the quantity of water in Bung Boraphet under different conditions. The weir at
Bung Boraphet has created a shallow tropical lake, in which the evaporation dominates thewater balance. Proposals to store more water in this system either by diversion from othersources or by raising the weir height, must recognize that 50% of all new stored water will belost to evaporation.
The water management of Bung Boraphet Lake must be integrated with resource management
plans for the Bung Boraphet sub basin and with the entire Chao Phraya basin, whilst also
providing a hydrological regime that can sustain the wetland ecosystem. This requires agreed

protocols for filling and discharge/extraction of water, and scientifically based targets for
amplitude and duration of drawdown cycles over annual and decadal periods. For example,
indices based on area of flood plain inundation each year, have been used elsewhere to predict
annual fishery productivity.
Conclusion
Seven percent of Thailand is wetlands (Omakup, 2001), and historically the welfare of Thai
people has been highly dependent on the productivity of these ecosystems. Intensifying
economic development is placing ever more pressure on these water resources. Whilst natural
threats to wetlands, such as climate change, drought and floods may be unavoidable,
excessive impacts caused by human development are prevent able.
In our opinion, the major factors caus ing significant environmental impacts in Bung Boraphet
are; over-extraction of water from Bung Boraphet for farming; dredging of the lake; and lossof connectivity between lake and floodplain.
The natural resources of the Bung Boraphet system urgently need a new co-ordinated basin
management approach. The decision support tools we have developed are based on rigorous
science. They add to the understanding of the system and offer opportunities to manage thesystem sustainably, for the benefit of both the current and future generations.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the RAMSAR Small Grant Fund and the Kasetsart University
Research & Development Institute for financial assistance. We are also grateful to the manynational and local government officers and people of Nakhon Sawan Province for their past
support and their continuing interest and help.
References
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), 1983. Water Management Plan in Chao Phraya River
Basin, Main Report. 376pp.
Chow,V.T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Fisheries Department (FD), 2005. Annual Report 2005 Survey of Fish Species in Bung
Boraphet. Nakhon Sawan Inland Fisheries Research and Development Center. 28 pp.
Junk, W. J. and K. M. Wantzen, 2003. The flood pulse concept: New aspects, approaches andapplications - an update. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on theManagement of Large Rivers for Fisheries. Sustaining Livelihoods and Biodiversity in the
New Millennium, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
International Centre for Environmental Management (ICEM ), 2003. Thailand: National
Report on Protected Areas and Development. Review of Protected Areas and Development in
the Lower Mekong River Region, Indooroopily, Queensland, Australia. 131 pp.
National Park Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (DNP), 2005. Annual Research
Report 2005 Survey of Wildlife in Bung Boraphet. Bung Boraphet Wildlife Research Center.
39 pp.
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), 2002. The
Biodiversity in Bung Boraphet Wetland. 146 pp.
Omakup M. 2001. Cabinet Council Resolution, 1st August 2000. Report on World Wetland
Conference, 30th year anniversary of Ramsar Convention. February 2001, Chao Phraya Park
Hotel, Bangkok Thailand. 24-27p.
Royal Irrigation Department (RID), 2004. The Study of Bung Boraphet Development Project.
Final Report. 1476 pp.
Ramsar, 2004. Ramsar Handbook for the Wise Use of Wetlands. Handbook 8, Managing
Wetlands, 2nd Edition. 83 pp.
Rural Development Information Center, 2005, accessed at web site
http://www.porchor.mo i.go.th on 5th October 2006.
Sriwongsitanon, N., K. Surakit, P.R. Hawkins and N.R. Chandrasena, (2006). Planning for
Wise-Use of Bung Boraphet Wetland's Water Resources. 3rd APHW Conference on "Wise
Water Resources Management Towards Sustainable Growth and Poverty Reduction", 16-18
October 2006, Bangkok Thailand.

Figure Captions
Figure 1. Bung Boraphet Wetland in Nakhon Sawan Province, Thailand. On left - Thailand
with Nakhon Sawan Province in red; On right - Bung Boraphet watershed in green, theConservation (restricted use) Area in orange; Bung Boraphet Lake at full supply level in blue.
Figure 2. Daily water level for Bung Boraphet
Figure 3. Conceptual model of the Bung Boraphet water budget
Figure 4. A conceptual model of the Bung Boraphet water budget analysis
Figure 5. Comparisons between observed and calculated daily lake water levels between
December 2003 and May 2006.
Figure 6. Modeled water level scenarios in Bung Boraphet for different management
responses
Figure 7. Landsat imagery showing changes in the (a) Wetland, and (b) surrounding
catchment
Figure 8. Changes in land use and composition of a) Bung Boraphet Wetland and b)
Catchment area between 1993 and 2003, from analysis of Landsat images
FiguresFigure 1. Bung Boraphet Wetland in Nakhon Sawan Province, Thailand

Figure 2. Daily water level for Bung Boraphet

Figure 3. Conceptual model of the Bung Boraphet water budgetFigure 4. A conceptual model of the Bung Boraphet water budget analysis

Figure 5. Comparisons between observed and calculated daily lake water levels between December
2003 and May 2006.

Figure 6. Modelled water level scenarios in Bung Boraphet for different management responses

(a)

(b)

1993

2001

2003
Turbid water

Floating Plant

Swamp forest

Paddy field

Clear water

Submerged Plant

Dry field
or open area

Land preparedfor paddy field

Figure 7. Landsat imagery showing changes in the (a) Wetland, and (b) surrounding catchment

20

100

A

B

Dec-93

16.1

Dec-9375.8

Mar-01

2

15

71.5

75

Mar-01

Dec-03Km

Dec-03

Km

2

50
10

37.0

7.9
6.6 6.3

6.5

5
5
2.6

24.4

25

22.6

19.6

2.2
0.25

0

0
Plant Cover

Clear Water

Turbid Water

Paddy field

Swamp Forest

Figure 8. Changes in land use and composition of (A) Bung Boraphet Wetland and (B) Catchment area
between 1993 and 2003, from analysis of Landsat images.

Tables
Table 1. Lake surface area and storage volume at specific lake water levels
Level(m, MSL)+21.77+22.35+23.00+24.00+25.00Surface
Area (Km2 )
27
37
66
147
168

Area
(% FSL)
18%
25%
45%
100%
114%

Storage
Volume (m3 )
25
44
75
178
245

Volume(% FSL)
14%
25%
42%
100%
138%

Comment
Av. annual minimum (2002-2005)
Av. annual minimum (1993-2001)
Recommended minimum
Current Weir height
A proposed future weir heightSource: (Royal Irrigation Department, 2004)

Table 2. Water Budget components for Bung Boraphet for years 2002-2006
Losses (m3 x 106)

Inflows (m3 x 106)

Evap
(%)

Seep
(%)

IrrigC(%)

DischA
(%)

Total
Out
(%)

Direct
Rain
(%)

Klong
Bon
(%)

Klong
Tatako(%)

Irrig.
Canals
(%)

Nan
River
(%)

Total
In
(%)

Av. Vol.
Wet Season

35.2
(92)

0.1
(0.2)

0
(0)

3.3
(7.4)

39
(100)

59.8
(27)

42.1B
(20)

106B
(51)

4.5B
(2.1)

2.9
(1.3)

215
(100)

Av. Vol.
Dry Season

63.3
(42)

0.1
(0.1)

83.1
(55)

4.2
(2.8)

150.7
(100)

9.7
(100)

-

-

-

-

9.7
(100)

Cum. Ann
average

98.5
(52)

0.2

83.1
(44)

7.5

189.2

69.4

42

106.2

4.5

2.9

225

Notes: A – Discharges downstream over weir, through the regulator; B – This is the net inflow as wet season
extractions cannot be measured; C – This irrigation term only represents water extracted from the lake via Klong
Bon, Klong Tatako, and irrigation canals. In the wet season, farmers also extract water from canals before it
reaches the lake. This term is not calculated, but can be estimated from our farmer surveys.

Table 3. Significant environmental issues to be managed at Bung Boraphet
Issue

Comment

Water quantity

High loss by evaporation and increasing extraction for farming reduce thelake volume to an unacceptably low level in the dry season.

Water quality

Poor water quality, due to human activities in the watershed and in the lake.

Sediment load from Increased sediment loads to the lake from human activities in the floodplain
catchment(farming etc).
Turbid lake water

Resuspension of sediment in mid lake by dredging that produces apermanent turbid water plume.

Loss of hydraulicconnectivity

Hydraulic connection between river, lake and floodplain are fundamental forhigh fishery productivity of wetland systems. The weir and regulator
structures limit fish movement between the Chao Phraya system and Bung
Boraphet. Land reclaimatioon and flood mitigation work on the floodplain
reduces its connectivity with the lake.

Losses of
biodiversity

There is mounting evidence of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation andreduced biodiversity (i.e. fish, birds).

Table 4. Bung Boraphet Wetland’s Values
Economic ValuesoooLivelihoods
Eco-tourism
Flood mitigation

Social ValuesoooScientific
Recreational
Educational

Environmental ValuesooooBiodiversity/Genetic resources
Productivity/Range of habitats
Water quality improvement
Water quantity

Table 5. Goals A for Wise-use of Bung Boraphet’s Water Resources
Goals
Goal 1Task
To manage Bung Boraphet wisely following best practice standards with integrated
catchment management:ooGoal 2

To manage Bung Boraphet’s economic values wisely for sustainable use:oooGoal 3

Goal 4Co-ordinate management actions by appointing a ‘Steering Committee’;representative of major stakeholders.
Recognise the connection of the wetland to its catchment and follow an integrated
catchment management approach.
Maintain non-hunting zone and no-fishing zone by appointing a “Wetland Keeper”(i.e a local committee).
Change land use pattern in the floodplain, ownership of land and future settlement.
Educate farmers (irrigation practices, demonstration school) and encourage efficientwater-use (i.e. change to less water consuming crops, conservation farming,
including reduced tillage on slopy terrain and crop diversification).

To manage Bung Boraphet’s water wisely for conservation and enhancement ofenvironmental values:o Maintain appropriate water level (between +23 and +24 m MSL) to preserve fish
habitat, stock, breeding; reduce over extraction for farmingo Improve water quality to promote growth of water plants; discontinue sedimentdredging and creation of islandso Maintain hydraulic connectivity between river-lake-floodplain, through regulator
and fish ladder, and to the floodplain (floods)
o Maintain flood mitigation capacity; reduce land reclamation on floodplaino Enhance bird habitat (Manage invasive species (weeds); Enhance diversity ofwetland vegetation (reintroduce species that have been lost)
To manage Bung Boraphet Wetlands’ social values:o Maintain education values- Enhance information and Education Centre.
o Promote recreational values- Promote Bung Boraphet as a tourism destination.
o Promote use as a scientific resource- Study site for natural processes

Notes: A – Targeted Goals developed at the Initial stakeholder workshop